How a Low-Carb Diet is Metabolically Like Being Obese

NF-Nov22 The Spillover Effect copy.jpg

Free fatty acids (meaning fat circulating in the bloodstream not packaged into triglycerides) result in inflammation, toxic fat breakdown products, and oxidative stress, which can gum up the insulin receptor pathway and lead to insulin resistance in our muscles. Insulin resistance is what causes prediabetes and type 2 diabetes. I explain the process in my video What Causes Insulin Resistance? As the level of fat in the blood rises, the body's ability to clear sugar from the blood drops dramatically.

Where does this fat in our blood that's wreaking all this havoc come from? It comes from the fat that we eat and from the fat that we wear.

The number of fat cells we have stays constant in adulthood. The way researchers figured that out is by measuring the amount of radioactive carbon still trapped in our DNA from all the nuclear bomb tests. After massive weight loss, our fat cells shrink as they offload fat, but the number stays the same. Conversely, when we gain weight, our fat cells stretch as we pack more and more into each individual fat cell. So, when our belly, butt, or thighs get big, we're not adding more fat cells, we're just cramming more fat into each cell. At a certain point, our cells become so bloated that they spill fat back into the bloodstream.

This is called the spillover effect. Not only does an obese person have more fat, but they're constantly spilling that fat into their bloodstream. So that could be the link between obesity and diabetes. Fat is spilling out from our fat cells and gets lodged in our muscle cells, leading to the insulin resistance that promotes the onset of type 2 diabetes. I show this in my video The Spillover Effect Links Obesity to Diabetes.

The fat can also enter our bloodstream through our mouth. If you put people on a low carb diet, fat builds up in their muscle within two hours and insulin sensitivity drops. And the more fat found in the muscle, the lower the ability to clear sugar from the blood. It doesn't take years for this to happen, just hours after fatty foods go into our mouths. A fat-rich diet can increase fat in the blood and this increase is accompanied by a decrease in insulin sensitivity.

Studies clearly demonstrate that fat in the blood directly inhibit glucose transport and usage in our muscles, which is responsible for clearing about 85% of the glucose out of blood. These findings indicate that fat consumption can play an important role in the development of insulin resistance.

Normally we only have 10 to 50 micromoles of free fat floating around in our blood stream at any one time, but those who are obese have between 60 to 80. But, we can reach 80 just eating a high fat diet. So a skinny person eating a low-carb diet can have the same level of fat in their blood that obese people do. Similarly, being obese is like eating some horrible bacon and butter diet all day, because obese persons are constantly spilling fat into their bloodstream, no matter what goes in their mouth.

Are all types of fat the same? Find out the answer in my video Lipotoxicity: How Saturated Fat Raises Blood Sugar.

The fat leaking into our bloodstream may also contain fat-soluble pollutants that accumulated from our diet: Pollutants in Salmon and Our Own Fat.

The spillover effect may also help explain the increased heart disease risk associated with obesity: Low Carb Diets and Coronary Blood Flow.

In health,

Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven't yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live, year-in-review presentations:

Image Credit: [Eugene Bochkarev] © 123RF.com

Original Link

How a Low-Carb Diet is Metabolically Like Being Obese

NF-Nov22 The Spillover Effect copy.jpg

Free fatty acids (meaning fat circulating in the bloodstream not packaged into triglycerides) result in inflammation, toxic fat breakdown products, and oxidative stress, which can gum up the insulin receptor pathway and lead to insulin resistance in our muscles. Insulin resistance is what causes prediabetes and type 2 diabetes. I explain the process in my video What Causes Insulin Resistance? As the level of fat in the blood rises, the body's ability to clear sugar from the blood drops dramatically.

Where does this fat in our blood that's wreaking all this havoc come from? It comes from the fat that we eat and from the fat that we wear.

The number of fat cells we have stays constant in adulthood. The way researchers figured that out is by measuring the amount of radioactive carbon still trapped in our DNA from all the nuclear bomb tests. After massive weight loss, our fat cells shrink as they offload fat, but the number stays the same. Conversely, when we gain weight, our fat cells stretch as we pack more and more into each individual fat cell. So, when our belly, butt, or thighs get big, we're not adding more fat cells, we're just cramming more fat into each cell. At a certain point, our cells become so bloated that they spill fat back into the bloodstream.

This is called the spillover effect. Not only does an obese person have more fat, but they're constantly spilling that fat into their bloodstream. So that could be the link between obesity and diabetes. Fat is spilling out from our fat cells and gets lodged in our muscle cells, leading to the insulin resistance that promotes the onset of type 2 diabetes. I show this in my video The Spillover Effect Links Obesity to Diabetes.

The fat can also enter our bloodstream through our mouth. If you put people on a low carb diet, fat builds up in their muscle within two hours and insulin sensitivity drops. And the more fat found in the muscle, the lower the ability to clear sugar from the blood. It doesn't take years for this to happen, just hours after fatty foods go into our mouths. A fat-rich diet can increase fat in the blood and this increase is accompanied by a decrease in insulin sensitivity.

Studies clearly demonstrate that fat in the blood directly inhibit glucose transport and usage in our muscles, which is responsible for clearing about 85% of the glucose out of blood. These findings indicate that fat consumption can play an important role in the development of insulin resistance.

Normally we only have 10 to 50 micromoles of free fat floating around in our blood stream at any one time, but those who are obese have between 60 to 80. But, we can reach 80 just eating a high fat diet. So a skinny person eating a low-carb diet can have the same level of fat in their blood that obese people do. Similarly, being obese is like eating some horrible bacon and butter diet all day, because obese persons are constantly spilling fat into their bloodstream, no matter what goes in their mouth.

Are all types of fat the same? Find out the answer in my video Lipotoxicity: How Saturated Fat Raises Blood Sugar.

The fat leaking into our bloodstream may also contain fat-soluble pollutants that accumulated from our diet: Pollutants in Salmon and Our Own Fat.

The spillover effect may also help explain the increased heart disease risk associated with obesity: Low Carb Diets and Coronary Blood Flow.

In health,

Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven't yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live, year-in-review presentations:

Image Credit: [Eugene Bochkarev] © 123RF.com

Original Link

The Natural Human Diet

NF-Nov15 The Problem with the Paleo Diet Argument copy.jpg

Our epidemics of dietary disease have prompted a great deal of research into what humans are meant to eat for optimal health. In 1985, an influential article highlighted in my video The Problem With the Paleo Diet Argument was published proposing that our chronic diseases stem from a disconnect between what our bodies ate while evolving during the Stone Age (about 2 million years ago) and what we're stuffing our face with today. The proposal advocated for a return towards a hunter-gatherer type diet of lean meat, fruits, vegetables, and nuts.

It's reasonable to assume our nutritional requirements were established in the prehistoric past. However, the question of which prehistoric past we should emulate remains. Why just the last 2 million? We've been evolving for about 20 million years since our last common great ape ancestor, during which our nutrient requirements and digestive physiology were set down. Therefore our hunter-gatherer days at the tail end probably had little effect. What were we eating for the first 90% of our evolution? What the rest of the great apes ended up eating--95 percent or more plants.

This may explain why we're so susceptible to heart disease. For most of human evolution, cholesterol may have been virtually absent from the diet. No bacon, butter, or trans fats; and massive amounts of fiber, which pulls cholesterol from the body. This could have been a problem since our body needs a certain amount of cholesterol, but our bodies evolve not only to make cholesterol, but also to preserve it and recycle it.

If we think of the human body as a cholesterol-conserving machine, then plop it into the modern world of bacon, eggs, cheese, chicken, pork, and pastry; it's no wonder artery-clogging heart disease is our #1 cause of death. What used to be adaptive for 90% of our evolution--holding on to cholesterol at all costs since we weren't getting much in our diet--is today maladaptive, a liability leading to the clogging of our arteries. Our bodies just can't handle it.

As the editor-in-chief of the American Journal of Cardiology noted 25 years ago, no matter how much fat and cholesterol carnivores eat, they do not develop atherosclerosis. We can feed a dog 500 eggs worth of cholesterol and they just wag their tail; a dog's body is used to eating and getting rid of excess cholesterol. Conversely, within months a fraction of that cholesterol can start clogging the arteries of animals adapted to eating a more plant-based diet.

Even if our bodies were designed by natural selection to eat mostly fruit, greens and seeds for 90% of our evolution, why didn't we better adapt to meat-eating in the last 10%, during the Paleolithic? We've had nearly 2 million years to get used to all that extra saturated fat and cholesterol. If a lifetime of eating like that clogs up nearly everyone's arteries, why didn't the genes of those who got heart attacks die off and get replaced by those that could live to a ripe old age with clean arteries regardless of what they ate? Because most didn't survive into old age.

Most prehistoric peoples didn't live long enough to get heart attacks. When the average life expectancy is 25 years old, then the genes that get passed along are those that can live to reproductive age by any means necessary, and that means not dying of starvation. The more calories in food, the better. Eating lots of bone marrow and brains, human or otherwise, would have a selective advantage (as would discovering a time machine stash of Twinkies for that matter!). If we only have to live long enough to get our kids to puberty to pass along our genes, then we don't have to evolve any protections against the ravages of chronic disease.

To find a population nearly free of chronic disease in old age, we don't have to go back a million years. In the 20th century, networks of missionary hospitals in rural Africa found coronary artery disease virtually absent, and not just heart disease, but high blood pressure, stroke, diabetes, common cancers, and more. In a sense, these populations in rural China and Africa were eating the type of diet we've been eating for 90% of the last 20 million years, a diet almost exclusively of plant foods.

How do we know it was their diet and not something else? In the 25 year update to their original paleo paper, the authors tried to clarify that they did not then and do not now propose that people adopt a particular diet just based on what our ancient ancestors ate. Dietary recommendations must be put to the test. That's why the pioneering research from Pritikin, Ornish, and Esselstyn is so important, showing that plant-based diets can not only stop heart disease but have been proven to reverse it in the majority of patients. Indeed, it's the only diet that ever has.

For more on the absence of Western diseases in plant-based rural populations, see for example:

I've touched on "paleo" diets in the past:

In health,

Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven't yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live, year-in-review presentations:

Image Credit: Nathan Rupert / Flickr

Original Link

The Natural Human Diet

NF-Nov15 The Problem with the Paleo Diet Argument copy.jpg

Our epidemics of dietary disease have prompted a great deal of research into what humans are meant to eat for optimal health. In 1985, an influential article highlighted in my video The Problem With the Paleo Diet Argument was published proposing that our chronic diseases stem from a disconnect between what our bodies ate while evolving during the Stone Age (about 2 million years ago) and what we're stuffing our face with today. The proposal advocated for a return towards a hunter-gatherer type diet of lean meat, fruits, vegetables, and nuts.

It's reasonable to assume our nutritional requirements were established in the prehistoric past. However, the question of which prehistoric past we should emulate remains. Why just the last 2 million? We've been evolving for about 20 million years since our last common great ape ancestor, during which our nutrient requirements and digestive physiology were set down. Therefore our hunter-gatherer days at the tail end probably had little effect. What were we eating for the first 90% of our evolution? What the rest of the great apes ended up eating--95 percent or more plants.

This may explain why we're so susceptible to heart disease. For most of human evolution, cholesterol may have been virtually absent from the diet. No bacon, butter, or trans fats; and massive amounts of fiber, which pulls cholesterol from the body. This could have been a problem since our body needs a certain amount of cholesterol, but our bodies evolve not only to make cholesterol, but also to preserve it and recycle it.

If we think of the human body as a cholesterol-conserving machine, then plop it into the modern world of bacon, eggs, cheese, chicken, pork, and pastry; it's no wonder artery-clogging heart disease is our #1 cause of death. What used to be adaptive for 90% of our evolution--holding on to cholesterol at all costs since we weren't getting much in our diet--is today maladaptive, a liability leading to the clogging of our arteries. Our bodies just can't handle it.

As the editor-in-chief of the American Journal of Cardiology noted 25 years ago, no matter how much fat and cholesterol carnivores eat, they do not develop atherosclerosis. We can feed a dog 500 eggs worth of cholesterol and they just wag their tail; a dog's body is used to eating and getting rid of excess cholesterol. Conversely, within months a fraction of that cholesterol can start clogging the arteries of animals adapted to eating a more plant-based diet.

Even if our bodies were designed by natural selection to eat mostly fruit, greens and seeds for 90% of our evolution, why didn't we better adapt to meat-eating in the last 10%, during the Paleolithic? We've had nearly 2 million years to get used to all that extra saturated fat and cholesterol. If a lifetime of eating like that clogs up nearly everyone's arteries, why didn't the genes of those who got heart attacks die off and get replaced by those that could live to a ripe old age with clean arteries regardless of what they ate? Because most didn't survive into old age.

Most prehistoric peoples didn't live long enough to get heart attacks. When the average life expectancy is 25 years old, then the genes that get passed along are those that can live to reproductive age by any means necessary, and that means not dying of starvation. The more calories in food, the better. Eating lots of bone marrow and brains, human or otherwise, would have a selective advantage (as would discovering a time machine stash of Twinkies for that matter!). If we only have to live long enough to get our kids to puberty to pass along our genes, then we don't have to evolve any protections against the ravages of chronic disease.

To find a population nearly free of chronic disease in old age, we don't have to go back a million years. In the 20th century, networks of missionary hospitals in rural Africa found coronary artery disease virtually absent, and not just heart disease, but high blood pressure, stroke, diabetes, common cancers, and more. In a sense, these populations in rural China and Africa were eating the type of diet we've been eating for 90% of the last 20 million years, a diet almost exclusively of plant foods.

How do we know it was their diet and not something else? In the 25 year update to their original paleo paper, the authors tried to clarify that they did not then and do not now propose that people adopt a particular diet just based on what our ancient ancestors ate. Dietary recommendations must be put to the test. That's why the pioneering research from Pritikin, Ornish, and Esselstyn is so important, showing that plant-based diets can not only stop heart disease but have been proven to reverse it in the majority of patients. Indeed, it's the only diet that ever has.

For more on the absence of Western diseases in plant-based rural populations, see for example:

I've touched on "paleo" diets in the past:

In health,

Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven't yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live, year-in-review presentations:

Image Credit: Nathan Rupert / Flickr

Original Link

What to Eat to Protect Against Kidney Cancer

NF-Sept8 Can Diet Protect Against Kidney Cancer_.jpeg

58,000 Americans are diagnosed with kidney cancer every year, and 13,000 die. And the numbers have been going up. Approximately 4 percent of cases are hereditary, but what about the other 96 percent? The only accepted risk factor has been tobacco use, but cigarette smoking has been declining.

Nitrosamines are one of the most potent carcinogens in cigarette smoke. One hot dog has as many nitrosamines and nitrosamides as five cigarettes. And these carcinogens are also found in fresh meat as well: beef, chicken and pork. So even though smoking rates have dropped, perhaps the rise in kidney cancer over the last few decades may have something to do with meat consumption. But would kidney cancer just be related to the processed meats like bacon, sausage, hot dogs and cold cuts that have nitrate and nitrite additives, or fresh meat as well?

The NIH-AARP study featured in my video Can Diet Protect Against Kidney Cancer? is the largest prospective study on diet and health ever performed--about 500,000 followed for nine years. In addition to examining nitrate and nitrite intake from processed meat, they also looked at intake from other sources such as fresh meat, eggs and dairy. Nitrite from animal sources, not just processed meats, was associated with an increased risk of kidney cancer, and total intake of nitrate and nitrite from processed meat sources was also associated with kidney cancer risk. The researchers found no associations with nitrate or nitrite intake from plant sources, but nitrates from processed meat was associated with cancer.

When meat producers advertise their bacon or lunch meat as "uncured," this means no nitrites or nitrates added. But if you look at the small print you'll see something like, "except for celery juice." That's just a sneaky way to add nitrites. Processed meat producers ferment the nitrates in celery to create nitrites, then add it to the meat; a practice even the industry admits "may be viewed as incorrect at best or deceptive at worst."

But that same fermentation of nitrates to nitrites can happen thanks to bacteria on our tongue when we eat vegetables. So why are nitrates and nitrites from vegetables on our tongue harmless, but nitrates and nitrites from vegetables in meat linked to cancer? The actual carcinogens are not nitrites, but nitrosamines and nitrosamides. In our stomach, to turn nitrites into nitros-amines, and nitros-amides we need amines and amides, which are concentrated in animal products. And vitamin C and other antioxidants in plant foods block the formation of these carcinogens in our stomach. That's why we can safely benefit from the nitrates in vegetables without the cancer risk. In fact some of the highest nitrate vegetables like arugula, kale, and collards are associated with decreased risk of kidney cancer. The more plants, it appears, the better.

Plant-based diets and fiber-rich diets are recommended to prevent cancer directly, as well as chronic conditions associated with kidney cancer, such as obesity, high blood pressure and diabetes. It's similar to sodium intake and kidney cancer. Sodium intake increases kidney disease risk, but that's not just because sodium intake increases blood pressure. It appears the salt is associated with increased cancer risk even independently of hypertension. What about plant-based diets? Turns out the protective association remains even in people who are not obese and have normal blood pressure. So overall, plant-based and fiber-rich diets appear to do both: decrease cancer risk directly and indirectly.

I briefly address kidney health in Preventing Kidney Failure Through Diet and Treating Kidney Failure Through Diet, but have a whole series of more in-depth videos dealing with various kidney issues.

More on the fascinating nitrate/nitrite story in my 17-part series about improving athletic performance with nitrate-rich vegetables such as beets and arugula. Here are a few short highlights:

More on carcinogens caused by cooking meat in videos like:

In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven't yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live, year-in-review presentations--2013: Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death, More Than an Apple a Day, 2014: From Table to Able: Combating Disabling Diseases with Food, 2015: Food as Medicine: Preventing and Treating the Most Dreaded Diseases with Diet, and my latest, 2016: How Not To Die: The Role of Diet in Preventing, Arresting, and Reversing Our Top 15 Killers.

Image Credit: RDSVS / Flickr

Original Link

The Effects of Dietary Cholesterol on Blood Cholesterol

NF-Mar24 How the Egg Board Designs Misleading Studies.jpeg

Blood cholesterol levels are clearly increased by eating dietary cholesterol. In other words, putting cholesterol in our mouth means putting cholesterol in our blood, and it may also potentiate the harmful effects of saturated fats, meaning when we eat sausage and eggs, the eggs may make the effects of the sausage even worse. If you eat the saturated fat and cholesterol found in two sausages and egg McMuffins every day for two weeks, your cholesterol would shoot up nearly 30 points. If you ate about the same saturated fat without the cholesterol, some kind of cholesterol-free sausage McMuffins without the egg, what would happen? Now the egg would have saturated fat too, so to even it out we have to add three strips of bacon to the comparison. Same saturated fat, but two-eggs-worth less cholesterol, would only bump us up only around five points. So, saturated fat may increase fasting cholesterol levels more than dietary cholesterol, but especially in the presence of dietary cholesterol.

And this is measuring fasting cholesterol, meaning the baseline from which all our meal-related cholesterol spikes would then shoot. Heart disease has been described as a postprandial phenomenon, meaning an after-meal phenomenon. Milky little droplets of fat and cholesterol straight from a meal called chylomicrons can build up in atherosclerotic plaques just like LDL cholesterol. So what happens after a meal that includes eggs?

In my video How the Egg Board Designs Misleading Studies, you can see what happens to the level of fat and cholesterol in our blood stream for the seven hours after eating a meal with no-fat, no-cholesterol. There are hardly changes at all. But when you eat a meal with fat and more and more egg, triglycerides and blood cholesterol shoot up.

That's the kind of data that's bad for egg sales, so how could you design a study to hide this fact?

What if you only measured fasting cholesterol levels in the morning, seven hours after supper? You wouldn't see a big difference between those that ate eggs the night before and those that didn't. As the lead investigator of a study which compared the cardiovascular health effects of smoking versus eating eggs pointed out, measuring fasting cholesterol is appropriate for measuring the effects of drugs suppressing our liver's cholesterol production, but not appropriate for measuring the effects of dietary cholesterol. After a cholesterol-laden supper, our arteries are being pummeled all night long. Then think about what's happening during the day. There may be only four hours between breakfast and lunch. So if we had eggs for breakfast we'd get that big spike and by lunch start the whole cycle of fat and cholesterol in our arteries all over again. So most of our lives are lived in a postprandial state, in an after-meal state, and the graph I show in the video shows that the amount of egg in our meals makes a big difference when it really matters--after we've eaten, which is where we spend most of our lives. So that's why when the Egg Board funds a study, they only measure fasting cholesterol levels of the next day.

Doctors are so used to testing fasting cholesterol levels to monitor the effects of drugs, they too often fall for these egg industry tactics hook, line, and sinker. Please share the video with anyone who tries to downplay the risks of eggs or dietary cholesterol in general.

The smoking study I mentioned can be found here: Eggs vs. Cigarettes in Atherosclerosis.

For more videos on eggs for those who just desperately cling to egg industry propaganda, please see a few of my latest:

For another jaw-dropper as to the gall of corporate interests to use the veneer of science to downplay the risks of their products, check out BOLD Indeed: Beef Lowers Cholesterol?

In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven't yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live year-in-review presentations Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death, More Than an Apple a Day, From Table to Able, and Food as Medicine.

Image Credit: Kate Ter Haar / Flickr

Original Link

What To Do if You Suspect Gluten Problems

NF-Mar1 How to Diagnose Gluten Intolerance.jpeg

Symptoms of gluten sensitivity include irritable bowel type symptoms such as bloating, abdominal pain, and changes in bowel habits, as well as systemic manifestations such as brain fog, headache, fatigue, depression, joint and muscle aches, numbness in the extremities, skin rash, or anemia. I previously discussed why people who suspect they might be gluten sensitive should not go on a gluten-free diet. But if that's true, what should they do?

The first thing is a formal evaluation for celiac disease, which currently involves blood tests and a small intestinal biopsy. If the evaluation is positive, then a gluten-free diet is necessary. If it's negative, it's best to try a healthier diet with more fruits, vegetables, whole grains and beans while avoiding processed junk. In the past, a gluten-free diet had many benefits over the traditional American diet because it required increasing fruit and vegetable intake--so no wonder people felt better eating gluten-free: no more unhealthy bread products, no more fast food restaurants. Now, there is just as much gluten-free junk out there.

If a healthy diet doesn't help, then the next step is to try ruling out other causes of chronic gastrointestinal distress. In a study of 84 people who claim gluten causes them adverse reactions (they're referred to in the literature as"PWAWGs," People Who Avoid Wheat and/or Gluten), highlighted in my video, How to Diagnose Gluten Intolerance, about a third didn't appear to have gluten sensitivity at all. Instead, they either had an overgrowth of bacteria in their small intestine, were fructose or lactose intolerant, or had a neuromuscular disorder like gastroparesis or pelvic floor dysfunction. Only if those are also ruled out, would I suggest people suffering from chronic suspicious symptoms try a gluten-free diet. If symptoms improve, stick with it and maybe re-challenge with gluten periodically.

Unlike the treatment for celiac disease, a gluten-free diet for gluten sensitivity is ideal not only to prevent serious complications from an autoimmune reaction, but to resolve symptoms and try to improve a patient's quality of life. However, a gluten-free diet itself can also reduce quality of life, so it's a matter of trying to continually strike the balance. For example, gluten-free foods can be expensive, averaging about triple the cost. Most people would benefit from buying an extra bunch of kale or blueberries instead.

No current data suggests that that general population should maintain a gluten-free lifestyle, but for those with celiac disease, a wheat allergy, or a sensitivity diagnosis, gluten-free diets can be a lifesaver.

For more on gluten, check out Is Gluten Sensitivity Real? and Gluten-Free Diets: Separating the Wheat from the Chat.

Some food strategies that may help with irritable bowel symptoms are covered in a few of my previous videos, such as Kiwifruit for Irritable Bowel Syndrome and Cayenne Pepper for Irritable Bowel Syndrome and Chronic Indigestion.

In health,

Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven't yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live year-in-review presentations Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death, More Than an Apple a Day, From Table to Able, and Food as Medicine.

Image Credit: Jeremy Segrott/ Flickr

Original Link

Hives from Tick Bite-Induced Meat Allergies

NF-Aug27 Tick Bites, Meat Allergies, and Chronic Urticaria.jpg

In a previous video Alpha Gal and the Lone Star Tick, I started talking about a tick bite-induced meat allergy, called Alpha-Gal, that is unlike any other food allergy we know. The most interesting feature of the reactions may be that first symptoms can occur hours after eating meat. Normally, an allergic reaction to a bee sting, for example, happens within minutes. With this meat allergy, we could have a piece of bacon for breakfast and our throat wouldn't start closing off until the afternoon. Because the cause and effect are temporarily separated, we often blame other factors, such as what we ate for lunch, or we just call it "spontaneous" or "idiopathic" anaphylaxis, which is just doctor-speak for "we have no idea what the cause is."

The delay likely occurs because the alpha-gal is probably absorbed along with the fat in meat, given that the allergic reaction occurring four to five hours after meat ingestion corresponds to the peak absorption time of fatty acids from the intestinal tract.

What makes the allergy even more difficult to diagnose is that the majority of victims experience only occasional overt reactions, despite regular meat consumption. Fattier meats, like pork rinds, may provoke episodes more consistently and severely, but still don't trigger a reaction every time.

Tick bite-induced meat allergy is on the rise. Ten years ago we didn't even know this thing existed, but now in tick-ridden states as many as 20% of the population have these anti-meat allergic antibodies (See Tick Bites, Meat Allergies, and Chronic Urticaria). And more and more people are coming in affected, though probably no more than 10% who test positive go on to experience hives or serious allergic reaction to meat.

We're also seeing it more and more in kids. Researchers in Virginia have found that it is not uncommon, though identification of the allergy may not be straightforward. Unlike in adults, who frequently present with systemic reactions, the majority of children with this syndrome present with just skin manifestations, such as hives. However, this doesn't mean it's not serious. In fact, nearly half the kids ended up in the ER, and about 1 in 12 needed to be hospitalized.

Up to a quarter of the population breaks out in hives at some time in their lives, but some children can be affected for weeks or months. It can be triggered by infections, foods, drugs, parasites, or be autoimmune, but in a large subset of cases we don't know what the trigger is, and so, call it chronic "idiopathic" urticaria. It's a common thing pediatricians see. The only cure is avoiding and eliminating whatever is triggering it, but in three quarters of cases we have no clue.

We now know that many children who had been diagnosed with mysterious hives or allergic reactions and may have been specifically told that the reactions were not a result of a food allergy, may have actually been suffering from anti-gal meat allergies. The serious nature of the reactions and the rising frequency of allergic swelling and hives across all age groups underscore the importance of identifying what's going on, and physicians should keep this new diagnosis in mind.

Allergies to meat might be more common than previously thought, as much as 2% of the population (which would mean millions of people). But to put this in context, Americans are much more likely to suffer an anaphylactic reaction due to seafood, tick bite or not, no matter where they live. A national survey of emergency rooms found shellfish was by far the most frequently implicated food, and unlike many other allergies, kids don't tend to outgrow fish and shellfish allergies.

Some fish allergies are actually allergies not to the fish, but to worms in the fish, like anisakis, which are found particularly in cod, anchovies, and squid. Exposure to these parasites in fish, living or dead, is a widespread problem. In fact, we can even have an allergic reaction to the parasitic fish worm when we eat chickens that were fed on fishmeal. This is one of the ways someone who's allergic to fish could get triggered by chicken.

Because of these worms, researchers recommend that people stop eating seafood and sushi altogether, because besides inducing allergenic reactions, the worms may cause a leaky gut syndrome, which often is unrecognized and can predispose someone to other, more important pathologies than just being itchy all over.

I previously covered anisakis in Allergenic Fish Worms and other allergenic parasite reactions in Chronic Headaches and Pork Tapeworms.

The worms might not the only thing increasing allergies in fish. See:

I also did a 4-part series on allergies in general if anyone's interested:

In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven't yet, you can subscribe to my videos for free by clicking here and watch my full 2012 - 2015 presentations Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death, More than an Apple a Day, From Table to Able, and Food as Medicine.

Image Credit: Meredith P. / Flickr

Original Link

Dr. Greger’s 2015 Live Year-in-Review Presentation

Food as Medicine

View my new live presentation here: Food as Medicine: Preventing and Treating the Most Dreaded Diseases with Diet

Every year I scour the world's scholarly literature on clinical nutrition, pulling together what I find to be the most interesting, practical, and groundbreaking science on how to best feed ourselves and our families. I start with the thousands of papers published annually on nutrition (27,000 this year--a new record!) and, thanks to a crack team of volunteers (and now staff!), I'm able to whittle those down (to a mere 8,000 this year). They are then downloaded, categorized, read, analyzed, and churned into the few hundred short videos. This allows me to post new videos and articles every day, year-round, to NutritionFacts.org. This certainly makes the site unique. There's no other science-based source for free daily updates on the latest discoveries in nutrition. The problem is that the amount of information can be overwhelming.

Currently I have more than a thousand videos covering 1,931 nutrition topics. Where do you even begin? Many have expressed their appreciation for the breadth of material, but asked that I try to distill it into a coherent summary of how best to use diet to prevent and treat chronic disease. I took this feedback to heart and in 2012 developed Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death, which explored the role diet may play in preventing, arresting, and even reversing our top 15 killers. Not only did it rise to become one of the Top 10 Most Popular Videos of 2012, it remains my single most viewed video to date, watched over a million times (NutritionFacts.org is now up to more than 1.5 million hits a month!).

In 2013 I developed the sequel, More Than an Apple a Day, in which I explored the role diet could play in treating some of our most common conditions. I presented it around the country and it ended up #1 on our Top 10 Most Popular Videos of 2013. Then in 2014 I premiered the sequel-sequel, From Table to Able, in which I explored the role diet could play in treating some of our most disabling diseases, landing #1 on our Top 10 Most Popular Videos of 2014.

Every year I wonder how I'm going to top the year before. Knowing how popular these live presentations can be and hearing all the stories from folks about what a powerful impact they can have on people's lives, I put my all into this new 2015 one. I spent more time putting together this presentation than any other in my life. It took me an entire month, and when you see it I think you'll appreciate why.

This year, I'm honored to bring you Food as Medicine, in which I go through our most dreaded diseases--but that's not even the best part! I'm really proud of what I put together for the ending. I spend the last 20 minutes or so (starting at 56:22) going through a thought experiment that I'm hoping everyone will find compelling. I think it may be my best presentation ever. You be the judge.

You can watch it at no cost online, but it is also available on DVD through my website or on Amazon. If you want to share copies with others, I have a five for $40 special (enter coupon code 5FOR40FAM). All proceeds from the sales of all my books, DVDs, downloads, and presentations go to the 501c3 nonprofit charity that keeps NutritionFacts.org free for all, for all time. If you want to support this initiative to educate millions about eradicating dietary diseases, please consider making a donation.

After you've watched the new presentation, make sure you're subscribed to get my video updates daily, weekly, or monthly to stay on top of all the latest.

-Michael Greger

Original Link

Three Ways Bacon Will Kill You

A Toxic Chemical Brew Disguised As Something Edible

The dangers of bacon make this food fad a gateway to cancer and early death. Research shows that processed meats, which include bacon, are health disasters. For example:

  • Two studies in the US totaling 121,342 participants found each daily serving of processed meats was linked to a 20% increased risk of premature death
  • A study in Europe of 448,568 adults discovered a high consumption of processed meats was associated with a 44% higher death rate
  • Swedish researchers found men who ate the most processed meat had a 28% higher chance of developing heart failure, and over twice the likelihood of dying from this condition

Of all processed meats, bacon is one of the most health-destroying, and can rob years from your life in three ways. Here's how.

One. Eating Bacon

Bacon is a complex stew of dangerous components. A few of the hazardous substances that researchers have discovered in mega amounts in bacon include:

AGEs

Advanced glycation end products (also called AGEs or glycotoxins) are inflammatory, toxic substances that form in large amounts when foods high in proteins and fats are cooked at high temperatures - for example, through frying, grilling, or barbecuing. These substances, which accumulate in your body and make it harder for your tissues to do their job, cause damage that includes oxidative stress, inflammation, and altering your normal protein structure and function.

AGEs are especially dangerous for patients with diabetes, but also give other diseases a leg up. For example, the AGEs that collect in your cartilage make it more likely you will develop osteoarthritis in the affected joint. AGEs contribute to the development of additional chronic illness, including cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, Alzheimer's disease, cataracts, and erectile dysfunction.

In 2010, the American Dietetic Association published a study showing the amount of AGE units in a serving of 549 foods. Of all items tested, fried bacon had the highest amount of AGEs per ounce.

This means one serving of bacon, at a tiny 13 grams (less than half an ounce) has a massive AGE load of 11,905. Contrast this with (all per 3 and a half ounces of the other foods):

  • Canned kidney beans - 191 AGE units
  • Apple - 45 AGE units
  • Canned corn - 20 AGE units

You would have to eat almost 14 pounds of kidney beans to get the same amount of AGEs as are in one mouthful of fried bacon.

Click here to read the other surprising ways that bacon will kill you

Original Link